Why Is North America Behind The Curve On Climate Change and Energy?

Why Is North America Behind The Curve On Climate Change and Energy?

Just three short years ago, it appeared that North America was on the verge of finally kicking that nasty dirty energy addiction that was crippling our economies and our energy independence. The United States had elected a president (Barack Obama) who set incredibly lofty goals for renewable energy targets, and green energy investments across the continent were higher than anywhere else in the world.

And then, all of a sudden, nothing happened. The promises of politicians went unfulfilled, investments began flowing to other countries, and we returned to the fossil fuel spigot for one more hit to satisfy our addiction.

And though North America includes numerous countries and territories, the two biggest culprits holding the continent back are the United States and Canada.

In the early part of this century, both North America and Europe were investing solidly in renewable energy projects and technology. As Renewable Energy Focus pointed out: Venture equity funding of clean energy reached $2.5bn in Europe, whereas North America saw $6.8bn venture equity funding in clean energy…The average size of investment rounds for an average company rose 103% to €65 million per company in North American, whereas clean energy companies in Europe saw investment rounds fall 4% to €27m per company.

But in the span of just two years (2009 – 2011), the United States went from being the world leader in renewable energy investments to third behind both China and Germany. But it wasn’t from a lack of profitability. In 2011, solar firms in the United States were up $1.9 billion in trade differences, meaning that our technology was being bought up all over the globe. We were a leader, and we were at the forefront of renewable energy technology.

In the Middle East, Morocco has invested $1.1 billion (Dh4 billion) in renewable energy in 2011. Saudi Arabia plans to generate 41 gigawatt energy within a few years, which will save half a million barrels of oil used for energy generation. Such initiatives after the UAE’s lead to host Irena in Abu Dhabi has changed the discussion on global climate change. The nations producing (polluting) hydrocarbons are leading the discussions to promote clean energy.

In South America, a continent that has already been working to reduce their emissions due to their location, which is considered to be especially susceptible to the effects of climate change, there is a massive push among governments to continue to develop sources of renewable energy such as hydroelectric, geothermal, and solar.

Businesses in Australia are rushing to switch their buildings over to solar power, now that the price of solar technology is falling. While they may be more motivated by money, there is an undeniable affect on electricity production and therefore carbon emissions from the switch.

Contrast that to Transocean’s activities in North America, where the company owned the Deepwater Horizon oil rig that exploded in 2010, killing 11 men and causing millions of gallons of oil to leak into the Gulf of Mexico. How did the United States punish the company? After a meaningless moratorium that was more symbolic than anything else, our government decided to speed up the offshore oil drilling permitting process. That’s a stark difference from Brazil’s actions to ban the company from doing business in their waters.

And Canada has fared no better on their punishments. In its first year of operation, the Keystone I pipeline had one major oil spill and 11 minor spills. Rather than taking action to hold the company accountable, they were allowed to move forward with an even bigger and more flawed pipeline plan (Keystone XL) that would put both Canada and the U.S. at risk of a massive oil leak or spill.

So with everyone else making huge gains in the area of renewable energy, why has North America fallen so far off its pedestal? There are two answers to that question, and they are joined at the hip: Money and spin.

That money and spin plays itself out in three important areas – The media, the government, and lobbying/astroturf groups.

In the United States, we’re cursed with a media that devotes far more time to climate change skeptics and industry insiders. From Stephen Lacey at Think Progress:

According to a new analysis of data released last year, American newspapers are far more likely to publish uncontested claims from climate deniers, many of whom challenge whether the planet is warming at all and are “almost exclusively found” in the U.S. media. The study was published in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

The researchers were trying to answer three important questions: Is climate denial and disinformation as prevalent in the newspapers outside America? Is it mostly right-wing papers publishing these pieces? And what types of skeptics are being published in different countries?

In all three categories, the U.S. emerged as a unique leader in promoting climate denial in the press.

And print journalism is only a small portion of the problem. The main area where spin has become so effective is in our televised media. According to Media Matters, during the massive heat waves that swept the continent this past summer, news outlets like ABC, Fox News, and CNN barely mentioned the role of climate change in their coverage (the only time Fox even mentioned climate change was when they were deriding it.) They go on to point out that only 8% of total media coverage even mentioned the role of man made climate change in the massive heat waves.

So what’s the point? Why would politicians and the media even concern themselves with this spin?

The answer to that lies in the second part of our equation – money. Billions upon billions of dollars have been spent by the dirty energy industry in North America to set up astroturf organizations, to fund political campaigns, and to buy advertisements aimed at keeping the populace in the dark about their destructive practices.

North American companies and politicians appear to be incredibly short-sighted in their energy decisions. While conventional fossil fuels may be profitable and easy today, they are not sustainable, and they are destroying the planet. Other countries understand the threats that the globe is facing, but the United States and Canada seem perfectly content to bury their heads in the sand.

Previous Comments

It isn't that North America is behind. We are developing different technology that is better than what Australia and Germany have and we have plenty of other fuels that are sustainable while we develop our newer, more efficient and cheaper technologies. Wasting money on early adoption of inefficient and super expensive green energy is just foolish. Der Spiegel has some nice articles about problems with green energy in Germany for instance as well as the soaring cost of energy and the rapid growth of energy poverty that green energy is causing.

————————————————————————-

Left in the Dark

About 200,000 recipients of Hartz IV, Germany's benefits program for the long-term unemployed, had their power cut off last year because of unpaid bills, according to Paritätische Gesamtverband, an umbrella association for social movements in Germany.

The consumer protection organization for the federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia estimates that number to be as high as 600,000 per year. Ulrike Mascher, president of VdK, an interest group focusing on social justice, uses terms such as “fuel poverty” and a “blatant violation of fundamental social rights,” when talking about the issue.

Another reason is the proportion of Americans who are creationists. To justify these beliefs they developo a mistrust of any science that tells them what they do not want to believe. This predisposes them to do reject science when it comes to climate.

GOP Rep. Shimkus:
“Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a flood.”

Senator Inhofe;

“Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that “as long as the earth remains there will be springtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.” My point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.”

GOP Rep Fred Upton says there can be no global warming because God won't allow it to happen.

“For the most part, Germany’s new energy producers are home owners, small and medium-sided businesses, and farmers, many of the latter who faced ruin only a decade ago. At the heart of Germany’s alternative energy bonanza is the country’s reputed Mittelstand: the nation’s well-situated, educated, conservative, entrepreneurial-minded middle class, which is the backbone of its economy.

Germany’s environment ministry has compiled a fascinating graph that shows exactly who has invested in the country’s renewable energy production: Nearly three quarters of the investment came from small private investors.”

you will find most people agreeable to that concept. I know I would be happy if ALL the money for green energy came from small private investors including me if I choose to invest. If there was a green energy co-op that could provide cheap electricity that paid a 12% dividend to investors I'd be in.

For much of the U.S. there is far better solar resources as in Germany, which should make it cheaper here, as well as providing more power. Solar grows the area where it is competitive as costs fall, efficiencies improve and installation costs fall. It starts out in the more sunny areas and areas of higher power prices, and spreads from there. It won't happen overnight, but it won't take long.

Wind is already relatively cheap and cheaper than new coal plants.

We also have far more potential for onshore wind power than countries in Europe.

—-

“California Solar Auction Crushes Grid Parity”

The weighted average cost of the bids accepted by PG&E (NYSE: PCG) , San Diego Gas & Electric, and Southern California Edison is 8.923 cents per kilowatt hour.

That's far below the average cost of California's residential electricity, which is 15.29 cents/kWhr, and is lower than the 11.52 cents/kWhr national average cost of residential electricity.

This isn't an all-in cost, which would include transmission connection, but even after transmission costs the projects should be less than retail costs.”

You are right. There has been significant problems with the grid being overloaded during periods of low electrical use and high generation. Ie at night during a wind storm. Poland is considering disconnecting from Germany's grid to avoid the risk of overloading theirs.

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.

According to the latest “Electric Power Monthly” report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which includes data through the end of 2014, some 13.91% of electricity generation in the U.S. last year was from renewable sources.